Wednesday, March 06, 2013

This Is About as Blunt a Warning As We Can Get

It comes via The Royal Society, a scientific body that has been around since the 1600s and is considered about the most prestigious on our planet, you know, Earth. It's a warning about our very real prospects of global civilization collapse in what may be modern mankind's final century.

What is the likelihood of this set of interconnected predicamentsleading to a global collapse in this century? There have been many definitions and much discussion of past ‘collapses’, but a future global collapse does not require a careful definition. It could be triggered by anything from a ‘small’ nuclear
war, whose ecological effects could quickly end civilization,
to a more gradual breakdown because famines, epidemics and resource
shortages cause a disintegration of central control
within nations, in concert with disruptions of
trade and conflicts over increasingly scarce necessities. In either
case, regardless
of survivors or replacement societies, the world
familiar to anyone reading this study and the well-being of the vast
majority
of people would disappear.

How likely is such a collapse to occur? No civilization can avoid
collapse if it fails to feed its population. The world's
success so far, and the prospective ability to feed
future generations at least as well, has been under relatively
intensive
discussion for half a century.
Agriculture made civilization possible, and over the last 80 years or
so, an industrial agricultural revolution has created
a technology-dependent global food system. That
system, humanity's single biggest industry, has generated miracles of
food
production. But it has also created serious
long-run vulnerabilities, especially in its dependence on stable
climates, crop
monocultures, industrially produced fertilizers and
pesticides, petroleum, antibiotic feed supplements and rapid, efficient
transportation.

...What are the prospects that H. sapiens can produce and
distribute sufficient food? To do so, it probably will be necessary to
accomplish many or all of the following
tasks: severely limit climate disruption; restrict
expansion of land area for agriculture (to preserve ecosystem services);
raise yields where possible; put much more effort
into soil conservation;
increase efficiency in the use of fertilizers, water and energy; become
more vegetarian; grow more food for people (not
fuel for vehicles); reduce food wastage; stop
degradation of the oceans and better regulate aquaculture; significantly
increase
investment in sustainable agricultural and
aquacultural research; and move increasing equity and feeding everyone
to the very
top of the policy agenda.

...rising temperatures already seem to be slowing previous trends of increasing yields of basic grains, and unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced, dangerous anthropogenic climate change could ravage agriculture. Also, in addition to falling yields from many oceanic fish stocks because of widespread overfishing, warming and acidification of the oceans threaten the protein supply of some of the most nutritionally vulnerable people.

...More than a millennium of change in temperature and precipitation patterns
is apparently now entrained, with the prospect of increasingly severe storms, droughts, heat waves and floods, all of which seem already evident and
all of which threaten agricultural production.

...In addition to the serious and widespread problems
of soil degradation, sea-level rise (the most
certain consequence of global warming) will take important areas out of
production
either by inundating them (a 1 m rise would flood
17.5% of Bangladesh), exposing them to more frequent storm surges, or salinizing coastal aquifers essential for irrigation water.

...The best estimate today may be that, failing rapid concerted action, the world is already committed to a 2.4°C increase
in global average temperature. This is significantly above the 2°C estimated a decade ago by climate scientists to be a ‘safe’ limit, but now considered
by some analysts to be too dangerous, a credible assessment, given the effects seen already before reaching a one degree rise. There is evidence, moreover, that
present models underestimate future temperature increase

...Fossil fuel companies would have to leave most of their proven reserves
in the ground, thus destroying much of the industry's economic value. Because the ethics of some businesses include knowingly continuing lethal but profitable activities, it is hardly surprising that interests with large financial stakes in fossil fuel burning have launched a gigantic and
largely successful disinformation campaign in the USA to confuse people about climate disruption and block attempts to deal with it.

Another possible threat to the continuation of civilization is global toxification. Adverse symptoms of exposure to synthetic
chemicals are making some scientists increasingly nervous about effects on the human population. Should a global threat materialize, however, no planned mitigating responses... are waiting in the wings ready for deployment.

Much the same can be said about aspects
of the epidemiological environment and the prospect of epidemics being
enhanced by
rapid population growth in immune-weakened
societies, increased contact with animal reservoirs, high-speed
transport and the
misuse of antibiotics. Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg had great concern for the epidemic problem, famously stating, ‘The survival of the human
species is not a preordained evolutionary program’.

But much uncertainty about the human ability to avoid a collapse still
hinges on military security, especially whether some
elements of the human predicament might trigger a
nuclear war. Recent research indicates that even a regional-scale
nuclear
conflict, as is quite possible between India and
Pakistan, could lead to a global collapse through widespread climatic
consequences.

Societies have a long history of mobilizing
efforts, making sacrifices and changes, to defeat
an enemy at the gates, or even just to compete more successfully with a
rival. But there is not much evidence of societies
mobilizing and making sacrifices to meet gradually worsening conditions
that threaten real disaster for future generations.
Yet that is exactly the sort of mobilization that we believe is
required
to avoid a collapse.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in avoiding
collapse is convincing people, especially politicians and economists,
to break this
ancient mould and alter their behaviour relative to
the basic population-consumption drivers of environmental
deterioration.

...If foresight intelligence became established, many more scientists and
policy planners (and society) might, for example, understand
the demographic contributions to the predicament,
stop treating population growth as a ‘given’ and consider the
nutritional, health and social benefits of humanely ending
growth well below nine billion and starting a slow
decline. This would be a monumental task, considering the momentum of
population
growth. Monumental, but not impossible if the
political will could be generated globally to give full rights,
education and
opportunities to women, and provide all sexually
active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The
degree
to which those steps would reduce fertility rates
is controversial, but they are a likely win-win for societies.

...While rapid policy change to head off collapse is essential, fundamental
institutional change to keep things on track is necessary
as well. This is especially true of educational
systems, which today fail to inform most people of how the world works
and
thus perpetuate a vast culture gap.
The academic challenge is especially great for economists, who could
help set the background for avoiding collapse by designing
steady-state economic systems, and along the way destroying fables such as ‘growth can continue forever if it's in service industries’, or ‘technological
innovation will save us’.

...widely based cultural change is required to reduce humanely both population size and overconsumption by the rich.
Both go against cultural norms, and, as long feared,
the overconsumption norm has understandably been adopted by the
increasingly rich subpopulations of developing nations,
notably India and China. One can be thrilled by the
numbers of people raised from poverty while being apprehensive about
the
enormous and possibly lethal environmental and
social costs that may eventually result. The industrial revolution set civilization on the road to collapse, spurring population growth, which contributed slightly
more than overconsumption to environmental degradation. Now population combined with affluence growth may finish the job.

Humanity has the assets to get the job done, but the odds of avoiding
collapse seem small because the
risks are clearly not obvious to most people and
the classic signs of impending collapse, especially diminishing returns
to
complexity,
are everywhere. One central psychological barrier to taking dramatic
action is the distribution of costs and benefits through
time: the costs up front, the benefits accruing
largely to unknown people in the future. But whether we or more
optimistic
observersare correct, our own ethical values compel us to think the benefits to
those future generations are worth struggling for,
to increase at least slightly the chances of
avoiding a dissolution of today's global civilization as we know it.

In a nutshell, this urgent and invaluable report calls on us to rethink our civilization. We have to stop seeing it as Planet Earth and start thinking of it as Lifeboat Earth. Our ability to live cooperatively for an extended period of at least several if not many generations will determine the fate of our civilization.Brown, black, yellow, white - we're all in the same boat and it doesn't matter if we're Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, animist or secular. We need every one of us to grab an oar and pull together for the common good and, like all survivors in lifeboats, that's going to mean rationing and sharing.

I'm not confusing the two, DOC. It's why I included this line from the report:

"...regardless of survivors or replacement societies, the world familiar to anyone reading this study and the well-being of the vast majority of people would disappear."

The die-off, however, would be massive due almost entirely to our total dependence on unsustainable support systems and institutions. Or, as they note and as the Pentagon and others foresee, we could see a nuclear extinction event.

Could we send a Labrador Retriever, Dudley Do Right or Social Services to retrieve doddering Joe Oliver from his voyages to 'make all Canadians look like green Tar Sands idiots tour' ? Its really pathetic to see a supposedly sentient being spew complete nonsense. Does he still have a driver's license?

First the Tar Sands were 'Ethical' and now they're 'green' .. What's next Joe ? They're 'Holy' or 'Blessed' ?And caring and deeply concerned Canadians are eco-saracens?Uh oh .. he's a holy Crusader for the Petroleum Club now .. ulp ..

If he truly is speaking for Stephen Harper, his so called Government, and Bay Street of Alberta.. its more proof we clearly have complete mad men at the helm.. certified frothing psychos that will gladly sacrifice the environment of Canada, its air .. land ..waters .. and common sense.. due to their undetermined psychic, economic, political, ideological or personal mood disorders.. or love for China.

Seek professional help Mr Oliver.. and retire.. spend more time with your family if they can tolerate you.. You've done enough damage to Canada and its clear you've become a complete fool.. dangerous in our time and disastrous to any future generations. Go hang with demented loose cannons like Peter Kent, Rob Anders, Keith Ashfield, Novak, Toews, Kenney, Baird, Flaherty, Clement, Mackay et al .. and fade to black.. please.

If the Tar Sands is an epic Titanic disaster, then you're the dull witted helmsman.. 'aye Captain, all economic engines full ahead' and Stephen Harper is your arrogant delusional captain. Open your eyes man ! That's not open water or an iceberg ahead.. its the fricken shore of reality !

Well, neither of you will ever be forgotten for your part ..Infamy takes a lot of time, hard work and dedication.. and gawd knows you arse holes are tireless, mean conniversthat deserve a demeaning postage stamp accordingly.

You're a wealthy workaholic with no real life. By comparison Mike Duffy is a fat little bed bug that itches Canada.. while you're emerging as a biblical and pestilent blight aiding and abetting the process of savaging the entire country.. with extreme consequences to the entire planet.

Your efforts in support of Mr Harper's mad eco dream, will exterminate large chunks of the marine, freshwater and boreal food chains. Not everyone can make that claim dude. You're the 'anti Jacques Cousteau', that has zero interest in celebrating nature or environment or creatures. Your passion is politics and petroleum, stock options and more money.. and screw anyone or anything that stands or lives in the way of your pathway to uber richness.

Please leave our country alone .. so we can try to heal itIt does not belong to you.. or your greedy investment factions or little Bo-Peep political club .. and its very clear that you and they.. do not belong here... or deserve status here.. much less care about Canada.

I think Leonard Cohen had it right when he sung "I have seen the future, baby / It is murder."

If the rest of the world consumed as much resources as that of North America, you'd need at least three or four more Earths just to sustain that level of consumption. And since there aren't three or four more Earths around, the industrialized world is going to be forced to contract.

You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. Endless growth means endless crises. Which, of course, makes me want to pound my fists when I hear people claiming that we need more growth to solve problems CAUSED by growth...